As members of the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, we feel compelled to respond to a recent article in this column entitled, “The Transfer Credit Myth: How Everything We Know About Excess Credits May Be Wrong.” This article references a study of graduates at the University of New Mexico to make broad claims about the state of transfer, declaring that “everything we ‘know’ about transfer credit loss is wrong” and asserting that “the problem isn’t credit acceptance—it’s credit management.”
As a diverse group of higher education policy researchers, institutional and system leaders, and state higher education executive officers, we wish the truth were this simple. Unfortunately, as we have learned over the past five years of board service and the much longer arc of our collective careers, there are no simple answers or quick-fix solutions when it comes to transfer. Painting the challenges before us in black-and-white brushstrokes conceals the many nuances in how state- and system-level policies and investments, institutional incentives and decision-making points, and learner behaviors interact in practice. Without a full view of the picture, we move backward, not forward, in our shared goal of realizing better learner outcomes.
We Must Begin With Rigorous, Critical Inquiry
First, we wish to commend the research undertaken at the University of New Mexico. We cannot emphasize enough that we need additional rigorous studies to analyze transfer learner outcomes, reveal where pain points in transfer exist and identify solutions. Yet, we urge caution in making broad claims based on one study alone. According to the column article, the study in question analyzed records of over 13,000 graduates of the University of New Mexico, finding that:
- 98.5 percent of transfer credits successfully transferred,
- Transfer and nontransfer students accumulate extra credits at “nearly identical rates,” and
- 90 percent of all graduates had “excess credits,” defined as credits that count toward requirements but exceed what is needed, and “fewer than half [had] unusable credits,” defined as credits that do not count toward degree requirements.
While these data points should garner interest and discussion, we respectfully disagree with the column’s claims that these findings alone reveal a “shocking truth that should change how we think about excess credits” and “should fundamentally change how we think about transfer credit evaluation.”
We offer that we should instead engage the methodological approach and context of the study with curiosity and weigh what else is known from the broader body of research to interpret its findings. We note below three factors that temper our own interpretation:
- The referenced study focuses on graduates and does not include the records of learners who enrolled but never finished their degrees.
We know from the data that the University of New Mexico has an eight-year graduation rate of 57 percent, which means this analysis excludes 43 percent of students who started but did not graduate. This type of “survivor bias” masks the experiences of students who likely experienced challenges as they prepared to transfer, applied for transfer and enrolled after transfer. It would be helpful to understand how the rates of credit transfer, excess credits and “unusable” credits compared for this group. Indeed, one rigorous study of undergraduates who transfer from community college to a four-year institution found that “the widespread loss of credits that occurs after undergraduates transfer” drives disparities in college completion, and that learners who experience greater credit loss have lower chances of completing a bachelor’s degree.
- Other analyses of administrative records indicate that they provide a limited view of how credit evaluation processes are functioning, as relevant information is often omitted from records altogether.
When it comes to transfer, the data infrastructure and technology systems needed to support systematic data collection and analysis are woefully underdeveloped. For example, institutional record-keeping may not consistently track all types of prior learning that a learner seeks to apply to a credential, such as military experience or CLEP examination, or track denials of prior learning. It is unclear to us if the University of New Mexico recorded all prior learning, however, other research has consistently pointed to such limitations in administrative records.
As previously noted by the column author, “the reasons credits are lost in transfer are either not recorded at all or not recorded in an actionable format” that enables their analysis by institutional leaders, policy evaluators or external researchers. For example, a learner may attempt to transfer a course that has no identified equivalent at the institution, or may seek a prior learning assessment for relevant skills obtained in the workplace. A 2020 study by AACRAO and WICHE found that “fewer than one-third of institutions track PLA data over time and it is rarely tracked at the student level.” Similarly, analysis by MDRC found that institutions decentralize and underreport such relevant information as whether a student petitioned a course denial. As a result, the official record can overstate credit acceptance and understate how much learning is left on the table.
- Context matters: The policy environment in which the University of New Mexico is situated may influence the outcomes of graduates.
We further worry about generalizing too broadly from one study of one university within one state. As a board attentive to the role that policy plays in shaping local conditions for transfer, we find it important to note where New Mexico’s state policy landscape is unique. For example, analysis by the Education Commission of the States finds that New Mexico is one of just 20 states to have implemented common course numbering. Common course numbering, while not a panacea on its own, is a common building block of transfer policy, along with policies like a transferable general education core and a fully transferable associate degree—both of which are also in place in the state. In short, the favorable policy conditions in the state may make it difficult to generalize the study findings to other states.
In addition, local context matters. In the University of New Mexico study, it is unclear where students were transferring from and how local course equivalencies and articulation agreements may influence the outcomes observed. Another recent study of vertical transfer students’ credits, this time in New York, also found that relatively few community college degree-applicable credits became inapplicable after transfer. However, the New York study acknowledged that unique local conditions—including that the three colleges studied were part of the same system and had worked closely together over decades to strengthen credit articulation—may contribute to results that may not generalize.
We Must Raise the Floor From Transferability to Applicability
But the goal isn't just moving credits from one transcript to another—it's ensuring students can build on their learning efficiently to reach the finish line. As a board, we have consistently called for a shift in focus from asking if credits transfer to asking how credits are applied to meet program requirements. Regardless of the degree to which the research article and the column do or do not focus on credit applicability, we want to emphasize it here again. This is not a mere matter of semantics but a distinction necessary to understand if the transfer function is working to bring learners closer to their end goal or serving to move the finish line farther away. Referencing again MDRC research in this area, we adamantly agree that:
“The distinction between credit transfer and credit application matters. At some institutions, over 40 percent of transferred credits did not apply to degree requirements at the time of graduation. The disconnect between credit transfer and application often leads to excess credits and extended time to graduation.”
We would add that attention to transferability without simultaneous attention to applicability also fails to address the higher costs to completion that mobile learners face. In short, we must design with applicability—not transferability—as the end goal in mind if we are to do right by learners.
We must engage in shared sense-making and work simultaneously across many fronts to address the multifaceted challenges in transfer.
To invoke the parable of the elephant in the dark room, addressing a problem as large and complex as transfer requires that we engage multiple perspectives—including the perspectives of those directly impacted and those working closest to the ground—to understand the many truths that abound. We appreciate the article’s many other valid points, including that changes in major can result in no-fault credit loss and that access to accurate, timely advising is essential to help learners make informed decisions and navigate through the myriad of pathways that exist. We remain committed to engaging in robust dialogue with stakeholders in the field to advance our collective understanding of the many very real challenges with credit transfer and applicability that persist and contribute to dismal outcomes for transfer students nationally.
This column offers a valuable opportunity for such dialogue, as do our live, interactive webcasts facilitated by Inside Higher Ed. And on an issue as clouded and complex as credit loss, we are proactively gathering more data to assemble a clearer picture. Of note, we recently partnered with Public Agenda to design a first-of-its-kind national survey of adult Americans to understand the prevalence of credit-transfer attempts and how transfer experience shapes learner journeys and perceptions of higher education. What we found was galvanizing—nearly four in 10 respondents had attempted to transfer credit toward a college credential. Of those who attempted to transfer credit, 58 percent experienced credit loss and 16 percent abandoned their college plans altogether because the process of transferring was too difficult. Data such as these add color to other studies, including prior analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office that suggests students lose, on average, 43 percent of their credits upon transfer to a new institution. But more analysis is needed, and we call on researchers, policymakers and institutional and system leaders to collaborate on rigorous studies to expand our knowledge base.
Moreover, we are committed to creating new forums for collaboration where none previously existed. Together with AACRAO and Sova, Beyond Transfer is proud to have established the national Learning Evaluation and Recognition for the Next Generation Commission. Comprised of more than a dozen recognized institutional leaders, transfer policy research experts, advocacy organizations and institutional accreditors, the commission has been working over the past year to examine credit-evaluation policy and practice in depth and is now poised to release bold recommendations to evolve credit evaluation processes.
As much as we wish we could declare victory now on transfer, we know we must press forward with robust research, open and honest dialogue, and intentional perspective-taking if we are to arrive at comprehensive solutions that finally deliver on the promise of transfer for all learners.
